Results-Oriented Representation

More than 90 percent of family law cases are resolved through settlement. Our attorneys are capable of negotiating for our clients in all areas. But, in the event that a case can’t be settled outside of the courtroom, our clients can rest assured that we have the knowledge and skills of seasoned litigators plus the resources of our corporate, tax, trust and estates, real estate and bankruptcy departments.

In fact, our attorneys have argued:

  • Reported cases before the Superior and Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut and California and precedent-setting cases before the Delaware Family Court
  • Federal court cases under the Hague Convention to deter parental kidnapping from the country of habitual residence

A sampling of the many matters we have handled includes:

  • Successfully settled a landmark palimony case (Maeker v. Ross) that precluded palimony cases from being brought unless the agreement was in writing, even if the oral promise or relationship predated the palimony amendment to the statute of frauds.
  • Settled a Pennsylvania Superior Court case (Karp v. Karp) regarding what constitutes reasonable levels of child support. The case had been appealed and argued before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
  • Set a precedent in Pennsylvania when, in Mascaro, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sustained Fox Rothschild’s position that its client should not have to prove expenses in order to justify support. This law remains in effect today.
  • Obtained a New York Supreme Court decision that the plaintiff was entitled to divorce on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment and that post-trial changes in marital property value were to be treated as irrelevant.
  • Successfully wrote the Petition for Certification that brought the issue of grandparent visitation before the New Jersey Supreme Court. In this case, the court decided that when parents refuse visitation, the statute was construed to require the grandparents to demonstrate that such visitation was “necessary to avoid harm to the child.”
  • Counseled the mother in a New Jersey Supreme Court case that upheld a lower court’s decision that it was not in the child’s best interest to be moved out of the state by the father since it would adversely affect visitation rights.
  • Successfully represented a prominent athlete in a California Supreme Court victory upholding the validity of a prenuptial agreement.
  • Counseled a father in his successful petition under the Hague Convention to return his children from the United States to the Czech Republic, which was the children’s habitual residence, and proved that the mother had taken the children without the father’s consent.
  • Served as trial counsel in Pascale, where the New Jersey Supreme Court defined child visitation rules as they affect child support and the role of the primary caregiver to minor children.
  • Successfully obtained a Pennsylvania Superior court decision in an adoption and custody case in favor of the grandparents. The Superior Court upheld the lower court’s decision to dismiss the aunt and uncle’s petition for adoption on the grounds that notice of the adoption was not provided and adoption would relinquish the grandparents’ custody rights, limiting the child’s relationship with the grandparents.
  • Represented a surrogate mother who sued her surrogate agency in the wrongful death case Huddleston v. ICA. The appellate court concluded that the agency must be held to the highest standard of care. As a result of this case, surrogacy agencies conducting business with Pennsylvania citizens must use a high standard or risk being liable for damages in a negligence or wrongful death action.
  • Successfully represented a Hollywood movie director in a matter in which the Second District Court of Appeal found that "executive goodwill" does not exist as a matter of law.